I know at least one person is going to bash me for this, but if you were founding a company, wouldn't you try to come up with an original name? I mean, there are a telecommunications company, so it is possible that they could be mistaken for Apple.

Wasn't Apple Records the original "Apple." The Beatles became important enough to have their own record label (apart from their own stuff, that "Those were the days, my friend" song was the only thing they came out with). I suppose the name "Apple" was this kind of Beatles, perhaps John Lennon thing: never explained but meant to suggest getting back to nature or to first principles as in the apple in the Garden of Eden.

Harry Shearer and Eric Idles "Ruttles" had a record label named "Banana" as documented in "All You Need is Cash." Gosh I wish they should show that satire-special again -- it was such a hoot and one is sure to pick up more of the jokes a second time around.

I am hard pressed that if there wasn't an Apple record label with all of the feel-good associated with the Beatles that Jobs and Woz would have called their computer something else. Why do you suppose Apple Computer got a free ride? Yes, a computer company and a record label (at least at the time) were completely different businesses, but Jobs would be coy to suggest that his Apple had no connection to the Beatles Apple and that he wasn't trying to make a connection in people's minds.

Actually, Apple computers was named that for entirely different reasons. Jobs wondered into the meeting where they were going to figure out a name for the company and plonked an apple on the table. Then he said that if they hadn't got a name everybody agreed on after two hours, they'd call it fater the apple. So guess what happened.

P. J. O'Rourke talks about working of a newspaper names "Harry" in his hippy days. The name had similar origins, and it probably seemed so profound when enough Cannabis Sativa was smoked.
Calling any kind of non-food product "Apple" for no obvious reason is such a hippy thing, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, and so you are trying to tell me that two groups of hippy business people came up with "Apple" independently? That a hippy like Jobs (he is all business suits nowadays, but try and tell me that Jobs was such a geek he had no connection to the popular culture) never heard of Apple Records.

I guess you've forgotten, but Apple also released some James Taylor, Badfinger, Ravi Shankar, Jackie Lomax, and the Modern Jazz Quartet, as well as, yes, Mary Hopkin.

As for naming the computer company, well, this was the year when "Kentucky Fried Computer" seemed like a reasonable name, as did "Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics and Orthodontia". Maybe it was the Bicentennial fever which gripped us all...

Don't forget, Apple Computer was sued by Apple Records over their name. Only when Apple Computer promissed never to enter the recording business were they allowed to keep the name. When the first Macintosh with a microphone shipped, they added a new system alert sound called sosumi. So sue me.

When they flaunted convention and IP law they were an underdog. Now they're the 800 pound gorilla.

If you really want to fear, consider what this tells us about what Apple would be like if they had Microsoft's market share. Kind of makes you want to go shake billyG's hand for being the lesser of evils.

However, Apple Computer did eventually infringe on Apple Records by allowing Macs to operate as recording studios. Apple Records and Apple Computers came to an agreement, as have Apple Computers and Apple nee iGreen. If, later, iGreen 'flaunts' the agreement as Apple Computers did, that's up to iGreen to face the consequences, isn't it?

Just about anything you can easily think of in English is bound to be claimed by someone out there. One-off attempts such as using a generic name appended to another generic name (X-Windows, Apple Telecommunications) are obviously coming under fire by the folks who own the generic names. Even making up something off the top of your head can open you to misfortune [altriahealthcare.com], because there are that many businesses out there.

Zlnasdng Telecommunications? Possible, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue...

A lot of large companies will higher a consulting firm to come up with a name for them.

NPR had a story [npr.org] about this a couple months ago about how hard it is to come up with a company name now adays. The main problem, as already stated, is that most english words are already taken. So actually finding a meaningful word or combination of words is really really hard.

When there are no real words left, the firm then gets to make up a word that brings out the values of the company, while not sounding to outlandish. It's actually rather interesting how random sounds put together can make someone thing a particular thing when it has no real basis in english. I'm guessing it's based a lot on roots and prefix's used in english.

All in all though, such a firm should be responsible for making sure the name is not already taken.

That's what lawyers are actually for (rather than sueing everything that moves). A quick trademark search in the exact industry isn't enough these days and anyone who gets an off the shelf company planning to be the next big thing should perhaps budget in some good trademark lawyers in there formation plans. There are words, combinations of words, and made up words out there. Creativity may be needed but checking definately is.

I agree with the origional comment. Three years back he formed a company called "apple xxxxxx" working in an area quite closely bound to hardware and software developement/sales. Cry me a river.

MS was trying to stop other software producers from using the name "Windows". Apple, on the other hand, wants to stop *anybody* from using the name "Apple". Talk about aggressive! They make MS's lawyers look tame by comparison. Now that's a company using OSS to be proud of!

I know the attorneys, and the company that employs them, look like assholes when they zealously protect the name -- a reason I couldn't do this kind of work -- but they have to or they'll get screwed in court by someone else. Look at the MS problem with Windows -- Lindows et al. with delicious irony retaliate by attacking all Windows branding. Note that one step in their argument was to submit a list of companies using Window in their name apparently without interference from MS. MS may have blown it, a major catastrophe for them. (Personally I think the name Lindows walks the line of -- a lot of "ordinary people" might reasonably think it's a Microsoft product.) The same could happen to Apple -- every company named Apple could be a nail in the coffin of the trademark.

As someone here has probably mentioned, Apple had early problems with Apple Records, Lennon's company IIRC, and settled by promising not to get into the music business. They got sued when they started doing MIDI; I'm not sure how that was resolved.

So, they do come across as assholes, and maybe they are, but they are trying to protect legitimate business interests, not just flex corporate muscle. Pretty much every case looks like intemperate bullshit, but that's how it works because a trademark dies the death of a thousand cuts. Look at cellophane and aspirin and the other famous lapsed trademarks. A protected trademark, unlike copyright, is immortal.

There are some things about being an 800 lb. gorilla that just have to smell bad. I don't like it -- just check out the sprawling list of reserved names, some not even in use on the Apple site. Microsoft much have an even longer one.

Anything you don't sue can and will be used against you in a court of law. Branding does protect the consumer, and keeps ripoff artists at bay, but I would welcome a solution to these petty skirmishes. Perhaps it would make sense to license the name out under the right circumstances of honest overlap, without waiver of Apple's primary rights. I don't know whether this is done, though I can imagine some pitfalls.

Today, Aspirin® is a registered trademark of Bayer AG in Germany and more than 80 other countries. In countries where Aspirin® is not protected by trademark status, such as the United States, the term Aspirin® can be used generically for all products containing the active substance acetylsalicylic acid. However, genuine Aspirin®, renowned the world over, is only available with the Bayer Cross.

After WWI the trademark was lost by Germany in the USA, UK and France (the victors) where aspirin has entered the language as a generic name. In 1994 Bayer bought back the Bayer Aspirin trademark in the USA from Sterling Drug, who had held it since 1918.

I suppose it is "Bayer Aspirin" that is trademarked. Interesting.

And my original point about genericide [inta.org] stands. Try thermos or trampoline or kerosene.

What they don't mention is that when Apple did release the Mac, they named one of the system sounds Sosume/So-sue-me/, basically laughing at Apple recording.

They also had a prototype of a machine named Sagan, in honour of the astonomer. But it fell on deaf ears, and Carl Sagan promptly sued them. They renamed the prototype BHA, for "Butt-Headed Asstronomer". Sagan sued again, but this time, the courts told him to chill out.

With names like Ogg and Vorbis it is much easier to establish a trademark given that they are completely invented name (oh! wait! Maybe they are words in another langage?). And given the controversy inside Free Software circles it gives them much marketing for free.

BTW, on close view I am for Apple on this one, I really think they will win against Apple;).

Apple finds a company riping off it's name. The offending company changes it's name. this happens all the time in the buisness world, just look at all the name changes power companies with Edison in their name make to avoid copying someone elses name.

We love Apple, we hate Apple... Argh, why must this company be so fucking schizophrenic in how it treats people? C'mon, Apple! Make up your mind, are you an asshole megacorp-wannabe or a company that tries to do What's Right(tm) by people? I just... don't... get it.

Steve. Seriously. Are you a real prick or do you just play one in the courtroom?

Apples problem is that they have a lot of extremely vicious lawyers working for them, which for no good reason at all they have kept around for years.

I expect that in the absence of anything really happening at Apple that needs them, in order to justify their wages they go around causing hassle for people. This strikes me as almost certainly some lawyer in Cupertino thinking "hmm, what can I do today". It's utterly stupid, because it simply gives Apple a worse name than they already have, for no return at all.

The solution is just to fire almost all the lawyers and hire them in on a contract basis as needed. But Jobs doesn't do this. Does that make Apple a bad company? Yes, I think it does, as regardless of the internal structure, you have to judge a company by what it does. Some people like Apples products, great. But they are still a bad company looking at them in terms of their actions.

Its not the company its Steve, he's a power hungry attention grabbing tyrant. If he's not fighting over a name, he's engineering a takeover (like
how he took over apple after apple bought Next [gtalumni.org]), or he's ticking off vital partners like ATI by removing all mention of ATI products with a black marker on all literature just hours before macworld because somebody leaked that two new machines were going to be released but no details. Or, more recently
revoking [businessweek.com] press passes to mac journalists.

Apple is Steve's persona.... and it tends to be a lot of controlled show... once you talk with people who have worked with companies that deal with apple you start to see a not soo nice picture of what the company really is...

What everyone here seems to lose sight of, or simply is ignorant of is that once you have a trademark, you are obliged to follow up every possible violation of that trademark no matter how small. Owning a trademark myself, I know this. It is a frustrating battle, especially when everyone thinks that by doing very necessary things to protect your investment in a trademark (Apples is, of course, much more heavily invested in theirs than I am to mine) you are being unreasonable and anal.

If Apple doesn't do this, the set precedence by their inaction which allows other companies to more agressively exploit their brand. If Apple waivers in this, they could lose their brand identity, not to Apple Communications, but to the other companies that take advantage of any leniency Apple shows here.

I seriously don't believe Jobs, or Gates even notices when these things happen. They look out for their bottom line and let their legal divisions take the necessary steps to protect their brand identity. Just because you don't see Apple Communications as a threat doesn't mean that it isn't....it's a precedent that if overlooked begins the erosion of Apple's property.

For-profit companies that remain viable entities do so because they understand that the primary purpose of a corporation is to make money. Understanding this clarifies why they act the way they do. If they can make money by being decent to people, then they will do that. If being complete jack-holes will make money, then they will do that. Note that these are not necessarily exclusive, companies can be both in different situations or even to different groups of people at the same time.

Apple is no different than any other corporation. Sometimes it is in their "interest" to be nice and sometimes it isn't. But you can understand why if you understand their purpose. (even if you disagree with what they do) Apple doesn't exist to make you feel warm and fuzzy. If they do, it is only because it is in their financial interest to do so.

Woz was SORT of okay? I mean the guy is brilliant, yet very humble. If it weren't for him, there would be no Apple today, yet he still gets paid around $50k a year. If you read about things that Woz has done, like giving his stocks away to other apple empoyees who missed out on the IPO, and teaching computer classes for poor kids you start to realize that Woz is probably a much better guy than most of us (no "sort of" about it).

_6dD$think they have the right to forbid everyone else from using the word "Apple", even if they have nothing to do with computers or operating systems.

Apple Communications sells broadband. What the hell do you think people will be hooking up to that, tin cans to holler into? There is a clear conflict there.

(what's next, suing McDonald's and Scotsmen for using "Mac"?

Actually, Apple had to pay off McDonald's so they could use "Mac," even though there's no connection between a computer and shitty fast food.

You want to rail against a big corporation being ridiculous with the trademarks, McDonald's is a much better choice. They were actually in a legal battle in Scotland [mcspotlight.org] with the centuries-old Clan McDonald over the use of the name, for pretty much anything. Now THAT is being a dick.

There's the foul ball, however. It'd be one thing if Apple Communications were a pure phone company, but the moment they start offering a computer-based service, it's hard to argue that the average person will be able to keep the two companies straight.

They may neglect to mention a certain Apple Records [everything2.com] that they had to pay off to stay in business. From what I have been told, the very famous MacOS sound "SoSuMi" was derived from that experience. "So sue me."

And how quickly they turn the other cheek.

They used to be:Applecomm.com.au [applecomm.com.au], but on the frontpage there is an announcement regarding the settlement and the change to iGreen [igreen.com.au].

I can certainly forgive them for their apples being sour.

The only upside of this is if Apple Communications would have become an ISP (not entirely far fetched). The name Apple Internet Access or Apple Broadband could certainly be too close for comfort, and would enjoy at least a small amount of probable name association; the very thing these sorts of suits are trying to protect against. It's a tough situation on either end of the boot.

What you are thinking of is when Apple used "Carl Sagan" as an internal code word for a product and the real Carl Sagan sued (or threatened to sue). So they changed it to "BHA" which stood for "Butt Head Astronomer". Sagan then sued (or at least threatened to sue) again and then finally changed it to LAW "Lawyers are Wimps."

There is a fairly easy explanation for this. In the soaring 90's, these companies made more revenue than they could ever imagine because people bought each and every product from them.

Now that the computer market has become highly saturated and the economy in a recession, companies will try to offset their losses by exploring new ways to make some money. When Apple or Microsoft go after these people, they hope they will fight against it and make way for a settlement. The company pays Microsoft (or Apple resp.) an undisclosed amount of money and in return Microsoft (or Apple) promises not to sue them.

The point of these cease-and-desist letters, trademark and patent lawsuits, etc. is not necessarily to stop other companies but to extort as much cash as possible. Makes perfect business sense to me.

The growth of the Internet also makes it possible to hear about stories that otherwise might not have been reported stateside. I mean, this was a rather minor case that happened half the world away from the USA, yet it's being reported on a USA-centric site.
Just like other news events, we seem to think that the frequency an event happening is the same as the frequency of the media reporting the event. Last year's "increase" in child abductions was such a case, actual cases did not increase, but the rollout of the Amber Alert system in many states gave police a process that notifed all of the local news outlets. Suddenly, child abductions went from a story in segment B of the newscast to a breaking story that disrupted programming. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all have deals with groups of local stations take from their coverage, so a local special report can quickly go national on a slow news day. The public sees several reports on child abductions in a short time frame and thinks there's a crisis going on, when really the risk of the tradegy hasn't changed or is being driven down because a once ignored problem is getting so much attention.

It's not a pretty law, but Apple does have an obligation to shareholders to protect the name and brand that Apple has developed for the last 26+ years, or lose the trademark.

What's your name? Your real life given name? What would happen if someone else just 'took' your name and got a new credit card? The basic idea is the same, identity fraud and riding the coattails of someone else with a good name, rather than using your own. Apple may not have a choice in this, just like you wouldn't have a choice in defending *your* name.

Apple is only obligated to go after trademark infringements by companies that are in similar industries. So, of course, they're not going to go after your local grocery store, carpet cleaning services, towing companies, maid services, or whatever else stuck "Apple" in their name so they'd be in the front of the phone book.

But a telecommunications company is fair game since Apple does telecommunications. With the convergence of computers and traditional telephony (e.g. VoIP, modems, 2.4 GHz wireless, DSL), the two industries are becoming basically the same thing these days.

Remember that Apple has one of the top 10 most recognized trademarks, and there are a lot of companies that wish to make some money (through name recognition) off that trademark. At the same time, they hope to mount a sympathy defense by citing how small they are.

I think he certainly knew what what he was doing when he named his company. I wouldn't be surprised if he hoped that Apple would buy him out to settle the naming rights in Australia (much the same way Microsoft did with "Internet Explorer), but they already had the global naming rights. After that didn't happen, he probably figured a $100,000 settlement is pretty cheap to get nationwide publicity for his company. He gets a newspaper article about him, and the sympathy of misguided trademark-haters around the world.

You never heard all the proposals for an Apple branded ISP? (I don't remember where that went; maybe they realized they didn't want to be AOL.).Mac has all the features of a typicals ISP account except the connectivity. And, there's always future expansion to protect.

Anyway, possible intention to expand isn't grounds for this kind of legal harassment. Any company could pretty much decide to do anything in future - if they aren't in an industry then they can't really target other companies called Apple in different industries.

But they are in the same industry, if you look at IT as the industry...

To even more sharply define it, though, you could consider that they are both in telecommunications - considering that Apple has Apple Remote Access, Sherlock, and of course Airport, etc. They do have connectivity, just not the base wires.

However, if they are in an adjacent industry, it becomes possible that the public might think that the Apple ISP is the same company that makes Apple Computers. The computer company doesn't need to ever intend to offer ISP services, they just need to be in a position where the public would believe that anybody who offered an Apple-branded ISP to be them. That's the whole point of trademark protection, that another entity cannot confuse the public into thinking that they are you.

Apple is only obligated to go after trademark infringements by companies that are in similar industries.

I don't think that's true for a couple of reasons off the top of my head. The first is dilution, cases where the name in an unrelated field (usually porn) makes the trademarks holder look bad, as in the Candyland case. Second, failing to protect its copyright could hamper Apple's future attempt to expand. It's certainly not unheard of for a company to expand by buying up businesses in other industries; Microsoft sure has, as has virtually every big company I can think of. (When times are bad you suddenly hear about their long-forgotten "core business.")

Apple Records was the original bully here, perhaps Apple is still smarting from that lesson.

As I mention in a parallel post, trademark holders, especially bg ambitious companies, have to be bloodthirsty. And I think that sucks, but don't doubt that it is true too often to be careless.

Apple, and all large companies, NEED to defend thier trademarks religiously. And while some people may think they are out to crush the little guy the opposite is actually true.

If a company doesn't defend it's trademark then it can lose it. If a large company ignores a competitor or possible competitor that coulds dilute it's trademark then they run the risk of losing the trademark to every other company that wants to use it.

So while some people may see this as Apple being a bully, I view it the other way. If Apple doesn't vigorously defend even the smallest possible dilution then that could open up the door and some judge could rule against Apple later.

Green is being sued by a man named "Green Giant" and so is changing it's name to "Fish Communications" only to be sued by Capt. Highliner, the rock band Fysh, and Microsoft (for using the word "communications".)

Later at discovery it was discovered that there are no words left to trademark, period. (tm)

I'm concerned that Linux is not going to make it to the big time for one simple reason. While coders are working on the system, developers are writing applications, and the press is writing about Linux, there is no concerted effort by a central group that is pursuing important lawsuits against those who use the word "Linux," the syllable "lin," or the letter L in their product names. Further, the penquins at are zoo are labeled as such without any notice that they are not related to or shareholders of a Linux company. I for one am confused by these misleading names and animals and I am sure that if they aren't stopped, and I mean soon, Linux is sure to fade into obscurity.

Can't someone do anything about this problem before it's too late? And why isn't Linus leading the legal fight? What's he got that is more important to work on?

And Linus (first name basis!) does have better things to do... so he hires lawyers for the same reason I hire someone to change the oil in my car. Sure, I could do it without getting too dirty... maybe.

Apple computers is sueing New York for $ 100 billion Dollors for using "The Big Apple" to promite the city. A spokes person for Apple (computers) said "New York is obviosly using our good name to lure overpriced high earning apple users to new york and get rid of the bad apples already there"

The popular beat combo known as The Beatles own their own company which manages all their affairs and rights. This company happens to be called Apple Corp and it has been going internationally since the 1960's. Its logo also happens to be an apple with a bite out of it.

Methinks Apple computer should bear in mind there were companies called Apple in existence long before it came in to being, before it goes after anyone with the word apple in their name.

How can you blame Apple for fighting this company? Apple has spent large amounts of money to promote their name, logo, trademarks, etc. Most people do not see a difference between computers and telecommunications. You can't tell me that Apple Communications wasn't hoping to gain some quick name recognition by using "Apple" in their name. I can see it now..."Gee, it says Apple so it must be real easy to use, I know I saw that on TV yesterday."

Besides doesn't trademark law say that if you don't actively protect your trademarks then you can't complain when someone starts using them? Purely from a legal standpoint I'm sure a lot of this has to do with setting precedent for future trademark infringement cases.

This is exactly what the trademark laws are set up for. Not for Apple Records vs. Apple Computers, or Apple Computers vs. Granny's Apple Stand, or Microsoft Windows vs. Newpro Windows...

In this case, the average - read

not

a/. reader - would probably mistake Apple Computers and Apple Communications, and think they are related. Some middle-aged couple who knows nothing about computers and own an iMac would be more likely to go to Apple Communications for their internet connection because they think they're the same company.

To the trademark lawyers, we're a really insignifigant portion of the population - most people really know next to nothing about computers.

almost all of the people I know, know enough about computers to at least install their own OS's and most definitely would know the difference between Apple Computers and Apple Communications. I dare to say that 90% of the population of North America has installed RAM, soundcards, CD drives, etc in their own systems before, and that all of them have had experience installing at least Windows, if not some Unix variant. Most 5 year olds I know understand how to hookup audio and video equipment, and have at least poked around the inside of their own computers (if their parents let them).

Then you're either smoking crack, or you're in a very lucky portion of the population.

I work in an office of 180 people, with an IT/engineer department of 7. Of the other 173, maybe 15 know enough about computers to install their own RAM, much less their own OS.

I also do consulting for 10 different small businesses (about 30 people), none of whom could install their own OS (including one who thought "Macintosh" was a separate company from "Apple").

If 90% of the population can do their own upgrades, then why are _any_ IT people making money?

Look around. Do 9 of 10 people you know do computer upgrades? Not just your friends... include your parents, your parents' friends, your grandparents, their friends, your mailman, your garbageman, the guy at the Dairy Queen, etc. Don't forget, you're in a very segmented portion of the population.

Here's another example [tex9.com] of what they've been up to. In short, Tex9 [tex9.com] (a small company which makes open source software) launched xtunes, but got a letter from Apple telling them to change the name... (sounded like iTunes) now it's known as sumi [tex9.com] . (sounds familiar, right?:) )

I think this, and the "Windows" debacle earler this week, are an example of what I consider a flaw in the current laws. I dont think a company should be able to use just some random noun as their company/product name. Noun combinations are another issue, but naming something "Apple" or "Windows" is ridiculous.

"Apple Computer" should be considered the full name, and if some guy wants to make "Apple Teleco," thats a completely different company, and I defy you to find more than 1% of people who would make the mistake.. and even if they did make the mistake, what does that hurt? "Hi, I want to buy one of those new ibooks" 'oh, no thats Apple Computer. www.apple.com.'

Again, along with things like corporations operating sweatshops in other countries, big companies have WAY too much power. I don't think the founders had the postmodern era in mind 230 years ago, when industry was still relatively local and nascent. I think two things need to happen: a) analysis and updating of current laws, b) multi-national corporations/companies need to be held up to OUR laws, not the laws of the target nation (which is essentially a colony to the corporation by current laws). Part (b) is also another way we can start to "grow up" and face globalization, and be less hypocritical when we say we're an advanced culture.

This just in. Apparently a Granny Smith is being sued by Apple Corp. Smith contends that she had has had the name rights to Apple for over 100 years, but in a California court today Smith was forced to change her name to Granny Smith Penquin Snacks and forfiet over $1,000,000 dollars of damages to Apple. Smith was quoted as saying, "This trial is a travisty. It's a travisty of a mockary of a sham of a mockary of a travisty of two mockaries of a sham". (bananas)

The thing about trademarks are you MUST defend them or you will lose them. One instance where you could have reasonably known of the existance of trademark ingringement where you don't defend will strip you of your trademark. Its that simple.

Goods and Services
IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: computer consultation, design, testing, research and advisory services; research and development of computer hardware and
From the USPTO trademark database [uspto.gov]. Sorry, couldn't give a direct URL for this page, you have to access it via trademark search under apple.

"services relating to downloading..." sounds a lot like telecom to me. However, it would require remarkable prescience to include the word Internet in a trademark app filed in 1980, so I checked the filing date. The filing date on that trademark application is 0ctober 2,2002.

I wonder when the former Apple Telecommunications company was founded, and if Apple Computer actually had a trademark covering telecommunications before the October 2,2002 filing date. Or at any rate, before Apple Telecom was founded.

The question here is if a large company can add items to its trademark coverage specifically so they can sue companies they suddenly discover have a similar name that are working in areas they might want to work in someday.

I run a discussion forum which focusses on broadband internet access in Australia.

The previously named Apple Communications has some really competitive broadband plans, and they are discussed often. However, I have often seen people casually confusing the huge computer company and the micro-Telco.

This was not a paranoia strike or an over-reaching hand by Apple Computer -- they were being confused. This wasn't apples and oranges, it was apples and apples. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the previously named Apple Communications.

It is unrelated but it is related. There are different categories of Trademarks i.e cosmetics, food, etc. I think there are something like 7 categories. see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/int ernational.htm for list of categories

MS can try to get people to stop but because Windows is considered a generic term they can't trademark it so they are more or less blowing smoke.

With Apple the computer company and Apple Communications there is a potential that Apple Communications will be mistaken as being a part of Apple the computer company which could besmirch the name of Apple probably under category 35.

Since Australia is part of WIPO they follow the same rules regarding patents and trademarks as the US.

No I am not an IP lawyer but I did IT support for a company (who btw had 60 NT workstations and only had enough licenses for 5)so I may be off but this is what I picked up.

MS can try to get people to stop but because Windows is considered a generic term they can't trademark it so they are more or less blowing smoke.

It is not a generic term and MS already has a trademark for the name.

I think there is a fundamental misconception for what generic means. A term can be generic for one type of goods but not generic for another type. For example, apple is generic with respect to produce, but not with respect to computers. Window is generic with respect to transparent glass, but not with respect to operating systems.

A term is generic if people use the term to refer to an item. For example, people sometimes attempt to use Xerox to refer to photocopying or FedEx to refer to overnight delivery. Those companies thus try very hard to make sure people don't use those names in that manner. Nobody uses the term Windows to generically refer to software. So those who say that the term is generic are mistaken. It is true that windows are a common feature in operating systems, but it is not a common name in operating systems.

From what I gather if you have a trademark and don't fight infringements you lose the trademark. I can understand why companies do sue over trademark infringements especially if they have put a lot of money into it.

Actually the connection is both are in the IT industry and in one industry its bad to have the same name as another company. It actually is possible for people to mistake the telecom company for the computer manufacturer.

Not to mention that the telecom would indirectly benefit from Apple Inc's advertising...etc.

I think most people would regard the telecoms industry as separate to the IT hardware industry actually.

Not to mention that the telecom would indirectly benefit from Apple Inc's advertising...etc.

Er, how? Apples advertising is almost all designed to try and sell a very particular type of hardware. That has absolutely no repercussions on sales of bandwidth whatsoever, and assuming that 99% of people can tell the difference between their local bits'n'pieces store and their telephone company, they should also be able to tell the difference between a computer hardware company and a telephone company.

Now, arguably, Apple Computers had the name first but Apple nee iGreen had the service first, but Apple does offer something called.Mac, and it does things such as file sharing, email, web hosting, backup services, etc... Everything except the actual dialup connection.

Is Apple computer in the right? Well, they do have an obligation to protect the name/trademark or lose it. Is Apple Computer being a bully about it? Possibly, I don't know the full story, other than the article.

So anyone making MP3 players calling themselves Apple has a problem.Anyone making video or DVD software calling themselves Apple has a problem.Anyone making rackmount servers calling themselves Apple has a problem.Anyone selling a Unixed based OS for home computers calling themselves Apple has a problem.Anyone selling web services calling themselves Apple has a problem.

It's actually possible for people to mistake their mouth for their asses, but I think that if we assume that's the norm, the standards for the human species have dropped pretty low.

If a telecom company is "in the same business" as one that sells computers, then a farmer is in the same industry as a supermarket and a photographer is in the same business as a lamp manufacturer.

Did you see Windows go after AMD (or the other way around) for using "XP"...? Did you see Stanislaw Lem go after Sun for using "Solaris"...? Or do you think the catholic church will go after Apple for using, well... an apple? That's not just trademark infringment, it's also probably a sin.

I can understand Windows going after some products with "Windows" in their name if they are operating systems created after MS Windows or if they are products such as "Windows MegaBackup" (which they usually ask to be changed to "MegaBackup for Windows", just to make clear that it's not a part of MS Windows). They are not going after companies that make real windows, or window-cleaners, or movies with the word "window" in their title. Because they have some respect for their consumers' ability to distinguish between them and because they have some sense of ridicule.

Once again (after buying Nothing Real, RayZ, Spruce Tech, etc., just to kill the Windows / Linux versions), Apple has out-microsofted Microsoft. In fact, they have the advantage of making you buy their hardware as well as their software.

but in this case its even worse.... an apple has been a generic term far longer

"Apple" and "Window" have been in the English language for about the same period of time.

By the time English was evolving into the language it is now, both an "apple" (which indeed exsisted long before the window) and a "window" were common objects. So the generic term, as you call it, for "apple" evolved around the same period as "window".

Ofcourse, "Apple" could rename to "Apples" and therefore have a more grounded reason in prosecuting trademark violators on the grounds that Apples != Apple, and thus not a generic term (like a certain Redmond software giant does:))